The Memphis appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1886-1890, 1887-01-11
INTERSTATE C9MMMERCE
THE THEME IN THE SENATE YES.
TERDAY.
Senator's Beck and Cullom Make
Strong Arguments In Favor
OF the Bill.

consideration of
THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE BILL,
and was addressed by Senator Beck in
favor If the adoption OF the confer
enc report. That report, he said,
(which must be either adopted or re-
jected as a whole) presented the issue
fairly between those who believed the
great interstate rail ways were, and Of
right ought to be, subject to law and
tho.e who thought they ought to be a
law unto themselves. No bill could
be framed which the railroad advo-
Gates would not oppose. Because
ths bill was supposed to be i'm
perfec', and to have some
shortcomings, they. insisted the
railroads should continue to exer.
else unlimited control of interstate
commerce. The defeat of the present
measure, either directly or by amend
ment, would accomplish their pur-
pose. 1t must be apparent, he said,
that the failure of Congress to punish
railroad officials guilty Ut discrimina-
tions and extoitions, was simply to
license them to continue the practice;
and no Senator would attempt to JUS.
tify that. He believed that the coun-
try would accept the bill as an honest,
earnest effort to break up a system of
favoritism and extortion which some
railroad managers had exercised
and maintained for the last twenty
years. He read from q book on
"Tbe Railroads of the Republic" by
]. F. Hudson, a chapter upon the his
tory of the Standard Oil Company,
which is represented as having in
eighteen months received from the
railroad companies rebates amo uniting
to $4,000, 900, aud having thus crush
ed out all competition in the oil
trade. He commended that chapter
to the perusal OF those Boards of
Trade aud Chambers of Commerce
thst were now so earnestly protesting
against the passage Of this bill, and he
asserted that if the facts herein stated
were laid before any commercial body
in America, no one OF them would
vote for the continuance Of a system
under which such monstrous outrages
had been committed, aud might
be repeated. He declared that not
only the commerce of the country, but
the fortunes Of all engaged in it were
ct the mercy of a few railroad mag
mates. Yet, Congress was told by
Boards OF Trade, protesting to be quar-
dams of commerce, that it would ruin
the country If it would prevent dis
ordinations, rebates and drawbacks.
He knew Of no higher evidence Of the
omnipotence OF those railroad people
than their ability to obtain from a re-
spectacle body Of trade, such reselu,
tions as were daily sent to Senators urg-
ing them not to interfere with railroad
despotism. The great fundamental
prir ciple which the passage of
this bill would establish, was
that Congress not only proposed
Hereafter to regulate the carriers Of 1t
but 10 compel hem to do equal and
exact justice to all persons dealing
with them. The original bill had
passed the Senate last session by a
vote of AZ to 4, and had passed the
House by a vote of 1872 to Al, aud now,
when the conferees Of bo!h houses
had agreed upon this bill, it seemed
to him that it ought to become a law.
No man could justify the conduct OF
many great railroad corporations in
the treatment of the vast interests con-
fided to their care and management.
He referred to the anthracite coal
pool as a specimen of combine
ton against the public interests,
and stated the aggregate capitaliz ition
OF the companies engaged in it was
$500, 0 5000, while the actual cost was
only $ll4,000,000 In conc usion he
said that he was not an enemy OF the
railroads. They had done more than
all other agencies to develop the re
resources OF the continent; but he
would require them to do equal and
exact justice to all. Believing the bill
would do 30 without injury to any Of
the legitimate rights of the railroads,
he should vote for it.
SENATOR cuLLoM ADDRESSED H SENATE
in favor OF the conference report, con.
fining his remarks to the long and
short haul. This section, he said,
simply undertakes to lay down in sper
cifc terms q rule or principle which,
as l have always contsnded, is already
in effect, the condition in other pro.
visions Of the bill. The frs require
ment of the bill on the subject oil
rates is found in the first section, and
is, that all rates shall be reasonable
and Just" This is, in effect, \ declar
alton that under similar circumstance
and conditions a greater sum sha moi
be charged, as heretofore, for {
charter than for q longer dis
lance, becauseu nder such circum
stances it would not be Reasonable
and Just" to make such a charge. Tit
next requirement of the bill that ,af
fects this question is found in the frs
part OF the third section, which for
bids giving an undue or unreasonable
preference or advantage to any par
ticular locality. This is likewise 1
declaration that a greater sum shall
not be charged for a shorter than for
longer haul under similar circum
stances and conditions, because such
change would be the making or Civ
ing Of an undue or unreasonable,
preference or advantage" to one par
ticular locality" or would subjec
some other particular locality" to al
undue or unreasonable prejudice o
disadvantage. (The Senator quot
ed the fourth section in iull.
As ] understand it, this section
as it now stands simply prohibit
a railroad corporation from charging
greater aggregate sum-not a highe
Tate-Ior a shorter than for a longe
distance over the same line, in tn
came direction, and under substau
TALLY similar circumstances and con
ditions, when the shorter is includes
within the longer distance. There
no other prohibition made in positivl
terms. The declaration that this shal
not be construed as authorizing an,
common carrier within the terms o
this act, to charge and receive as grea
compensation for a shorter as for
longer distance, does not in terms pro
hibit the charging as much for
shorter as for a longer distance, bu
simply withholds the legislative SAINT
ton from the making of such charge
This qualifying clsuee negatives thu
inference that might be drawn from